by W.B. Howard (Editor Despatch)

Major Headings


How could two lizards cost Australian taxpayers $650,000 in fees, new site plans and surveys? Yet this did happen, as reported in The Advertiser, Adelaide, and the Reader's Digest, April, 1996. Another outrageous intrusion by the environmental movement. What went on to bring about this absurdity?

The Australian Geological Survey Organization submitted a proposal for a headquarters in February 1995,a $105-million project. However the Australian Capital Territory Department of Environment and Land Planning discovered that two earless dragons were on the site. These were rather rare, and little was known of the species, and so the department would not issue an environmental clearance.

$84,000 has been set aside to give a management plan for the dragons, just in case others turn up, or perhaps another rare lizard enters the scene on a new site - 300 metres away.

Commented Senator Paul Calvert, describing the situation as bureaucracy "run amok", "most people would not believe that such a situation could arise. The facts of this case show the Canberra bureaucracy is capable of anything, as long as the long-suffering taxpayer is the one to pick up the tab."

Crazy! It couldn't be true! Yes, it can and is. We are living in the age of the "environmental disaster" hysteria, the "save the earth" scam, and the "animalism are equal with humans" paganistic global-mind. It is not at all uncommon to have laws passed which bring severe suffering to humans - just to satisfy some outrageous demand of one of the "ecology" groups which have mushroomed across Australia and the world.

The environmental saviours are a pain in the neck, but are there more sinister reasons to oppose their extremist views than those which first meet the eye? Aren't they just nature lovers who have gotten a little fanatical? "Hippies" with a too romantic, not very practical, attachment to furry creatures, rain forests and lizards?

The New Age phenomenon known as "saving the ecology of earth" is a complex, nasty business which few citizens of the earth understand. In this brief warning, only the smallest part of the politics and religious beliefs of the environmental movement can be touched upon, there is much, much more! World, we face suffering, privation, starvation, imprisonment and death from the New Age eco-terrorists! It is high time we realised what is occurring.


The kind of questions people need to ask are stated below. We hope to provide the answers, which should enlighten the reader to the vast perils of the "ecology" fiasco!

1. What are the ecological, scientific truths? Are these diametrically opposed to the dogmas of environmentalism?

2.Who are the leaders, and what are the political aims of environmentalism? What is happening in Australia?

3. What is the weird religious foundation of the environmental movement?

4. What are you and I facing, how will all this change our lives?


Let's ask these important questions:

Is there really danger from the "hole in the ozone layer"?

Answer - NO! Could there be a "greenhouse effect" which will cause disaster to the planet? Answer - NO! Are CFCs the main culprit which is causing the "hole in the ozone layer"? Answer - NO! Is it therefore practical and sensible to completely ban CFCs? Answer - NO!


Once upon a time clever men, with vested interests and a whole planet and its wealth to gain, cried: "there is a giant hole in the sky, and we must force the masses to live like peasants, doing without proper refrigeration and air-conditioning in order to save the world and all its life." Did the inhabitants of earth believe this myth? Yes they did, and insisted that the necessities that kept them alive and well-fed be destroyed. Why? Because of the fear that the clever men engendered about the giant hole, and how the planet was beginning to cook. Why would anyone want to cause such a scare on the planet if it is not true? There are a number of reasons, this is not a simple situation that has arisen. The whole "ozone" "greenhouse" business has almost a supernatural quality about it, have you noticed? When in history has any promotion of anything at all ever gone so well! The entire global community has caught the "save the earth" message, what an amazing effort of net-working, propaganda and teaching has gone into this greatest of all the ages advertising campaign. You need proofs about the environmental movement being a scam? By the end of this booklet you will have some of them.


There is a New World Order which desires to see a One World union, and the "save the earth" campaign is a wonderful weapon for the Plan. People are uniting and demanding that "something be done" in this "crisis" or we will all perish. The world needs a government and a ruler, or we will destroy the atmosphere - so "they" say. Some of the lesser mortals have swallowed the hook, and are being pulled "every which way" by the clever men. These lesser mortals have made names for themselves, have fortunes tied up in the "save the earth" environmentalism. They head up groups, work tirelessly, they now have deaf ears if any words of common sense are directed at them. They will not allow any contradiction about the "ozone hole" - although, as will be shown shortly, there is no scientific proof which justifies the "ozone hole" hysteria, or the other catastrophes either. Including the so-called "population explosion". Many sincere, trusting, naive folk are working to "save the earth" simply out of concern for the earth as their home, and their childrens' home. They have come to see this as top priority, and anyone who says otherwise is seen as a potential killer of the inhabitants of the planet. They believe implicitly in the New Age hype. They have heard and seen about it again and again in magazines, newspapers, on television, at colleges, schools, on the radio, on computer models, and countless other ways of communication. They are hooked, and the struggle is over. They are emotionally, passionately involved in "saving Mother Earth".


In August 1963, fifteen experts in differing fields, social science, history, economics, international law, cultural anthropology, psychology, psychiatry, mathematics, astronomy, and some others had a secret meeting at Iron Mountain, New York. They were highly influential men with global power. This "Iron Mountain" is a network of offices and vaults near Hudson, for corporations in case nuclear war breaks out. Over the next two years the group met many times, in various areas of the United States. The group concluded that war was stabilizing, and brought unity to the masses, that it was necessary. They concluded that peace destabilized nations. It was decided that war was too "wasteful" however, and that other methods should be deliberately set in motion to bring global unity, control and "stability". What could they replace war with was the question. They reviewed as possible replacements "a comprehensive social-welfare program...a giant open-end space research program, aimed at unreachable targets... an omnipresent, virtually omnipotent international police force, an established and recognized extraterrestrial menace, massive global environmental pollution, fictitious alternate enemies... new religions or other mythologies, and others." (Leonard Lewin, Foreword, Report from Iron Mountain on the Possibility and Desirability of Peace. (New York: Dial, 1967; also see Esquire, December 1967; New York: Dell, 1967; Hammondsworth: Penquin, 1968; and London: Macdonald, 1968) Good report on Iron Mountain is found in the Spiritual Counterfeits Project Journal 17, no 3:40-56, 992.) The Iron Mountain Report is NOT FICTION. U.S. News and World report called it the "book that shook the White House". "Could it be that the entire eco-catastrophe and fear-mongering campaign has been a gigantic hoax - a hoax perpetrated on the world for a small group of so-called superhumans who are called by theosophists the "Brotherhood of the Masters"; a hoax invented so that its perpetrators can gain global control and implement the new world order and a universal religion keyed on Theosophy?" (Michael S. Coffman. "Saviours of the Earth?", p.211). Coffman goes on to show that that is indeed the scenario. Four years after the publication of the Iron Mountain Report, the Council of Foreign Affairs, under the directorship of David Rockefeller, announced dramatically that the eco-crisis was a threat to the earth! This actually began the modern version of the environmental movement, with its present form of political clout and eco-extremism. Rockefeller, and the foundations which he has the most influence over, gave massive funding to the environmental organizations. The Theosophical Society, with its off-shoot Lucis Trust, have vastly influenced the environmental movement. First called Lucifer Trust Publishing by Alice Bailey, this occult organization has untold control now over the UN, and have used the peace movement and the environmental movement as tools of change. The Lucis Trust and Theosophical aim is to change Western civilization back to a Babylonian religious society. David Rockefeller is a member of Lucis Trust. Past and present members of this astonishing religious organization are Henry Kissinger, Robert McNamara, and George Shultz. To the Theosophist nature is sacred, the "Mother Earth" is a living entity, and "god" is all creation, including man himself.


From the pen of Michael S. Coffman (Ph.D., university if Idaho;M.S., Biology, Northern Arizona University [NAU]; B.S., Forestry, NAU. He is an environmental consultant working with Environmental Perspectives,Inc. From the book "Saviours of the Earth?", pp. 46-47:


These issues are extremely complex - too complex for simple solutions based on emotional hype. Yet, that is exactly what we are hearing from environmental leaders and a small minority of scientists. We came dangerously close to signing extremely costly treaties at the 1992 Earth Summit at Rio de Janeiro. (Which was headed, by the way, by New Ager MauriceStrong). During the Earth Summit we were barraged with the 'fact' that global warming was proven by science. At best that image was a gross distortion of reality. At worse, it was a lie. What few realized was that the so-called fact was based upon a falsified summary of a scientific report on global warming published in 1990. This summary, reproduced by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), was the centerpiece of the global warming call-to-action at the Earth Summit. The primary report, the Scientific Assessment of Climate Change, was the result of a meeting of nearly 200 climatologists, scientists, bureaucrats, and administrators from around the world. It basically outlined the uncertainties noted above. But when the IPCC produced the document of this meeting, the uncertainties outlined by the scientists were minimized by the one to three carefully chosen people who wrote each chapter. The uncertainties disappeared entirely in the executive summary. Instead of uncertainty, the summary concluded that the greenhouse effect 'poses a SIGNIFICANT environmental threat'. According to Christopher Folland, assistant to Sir John Houghton of the United Kingdom Meteorlogical Office who wrote the summary, the summary would have had no value to policymakers if it were punctuated by repeated cautions and 'on the other hand' statements. Since its release, the summary has been presented to political leaders and the public as an 'authoritative statement of the international scientific community.' BUT IT WAS A FRAUD." (Emphasis added). (End of quote - parenthesis added).


Well, you might say, if it was a fraudulent summary, why didn't responsible scientists refute it, publically, furiously, using the media, warning world leaders? They DID, dear friends, they DID! But there is a "stacked deck" against the truth being leaked to you and I. Dr Coffman goes on with these shocking words: "Enraged, forty-eight American scientists who contributed to the original report formed the Science and Environmental Policy Project (S&EPP). Led by Fred Singer, Atmospheric Physicist and Director, Science and Environmental Policy at the University of Virginia,the S&EPP challenged the 'unsupported assumption that catastrophic global warming follows from the burning of fossil fuels and requires immediate action.' In a separate action, an additional 46 prominent scientists and intellectuals in the United States, including 27 Nobel Prize winners, joined 218 scientists in other countries and presented what is called the Heidelberg Appeal to the Heads of State Attending the Earth Summit. `This appeal states that the global warming theory, ozone depletion theory, and other 'catastrophes' paraded before the world are based on 'pseudo-science, irrational preconceptions, and non-relevant data. Tragically, any scientist who disagrees with the apocalypse machine is ignored. The worse offender in this stacking of the deck is Vice President Gore (of the USA)." (End of quote). Have the newspapers been "muzzled" by the environmentalists and their political NWO backers? Yes indeed, as Dr. Coffman reveals: "Newsweeks Greg Easterbrook relates in the July 6,1992, issue of the New Republic that, 'Gore and the distinguished biologist Paul Ehrlich ( a top New Ager) have ventured into dangerous territory by suggesting that journalists quietly self-censor environmental evidence that is not alarming, because such reports, in Gore's words, 'undermine the effort to build a solid basis of public support for the difficult actions we must soon take.' So much for truth, integrity, and freedom of speech. After all, what's a few trillion dollars to a career politician - even if the policy is based in unsubstantiated theory when the overwhelming facts say otherwise? After all, the American citizens will pay for it." (End of quote, parenthesis added).


One can understand fully why the citizens of earth will fall in with any plan which will save them from the crisis of the dread "greenhouse effect"! They have visions of disasters horrific, icecaps melting with civilizations being wiped out along coastlines as the oceans overflow, extremely high temperatures causing gigantic bush fires beyond imagination, no rain, no water, everyone getting melanomas on their skins - a hell on earth! There are a number of points of immense importance we should consider straight away here: 1. ALL scientists do NOT agree that there is any catastrophic greenhouse warming happening. The facts are startling, as pointed out on page 39 of "Saviours of the Earth"; "Some environmental leaders and politicians would have you believe that almost all scientists agree global warming is occurring. Vice President Albert Gore asserts that 98 percent of all atmospheric scientists agree that catastrophic greenhouse warming has begun. THIS IS SIMPLY NOT TRUE. A February 1992 Gallup poll of climatologists and atmospheric physicists yielded the conclusion that only SEVENTEEN PERCENT of these scientists believed there was scientific evidence for greenhouse-caused global warming." (Emphasis added). (The poll was taken within the members of the American Geophysical Union and the American Meteorlogical Society. from National Review, March 16 1992, 17.) 2. Therefore, a massive EIGHTY THREE PERCENT of those scientists cited above actually believe that there is NO EVIDENCE for greenhouse warming. A small sample only of the scientific facts should go a long waytowards convincing the reader that something "smells fishy" about this whole global warming fiasco. 3. We have been told that the warmest global temperatures occurred in the 1980s. That is true enough, but what they did not tell us was that 90 percent of the warming during the past 100 years had already occurred by 1940:"In fact, the entire 100-year increase in temperature can be explained by a five-year increase that took place between 1917 and 1921. But the increase was so benign that nobody noticed it for sixty-five years. Although the biggest temperature increases occurred during the first half of the twentieth century, the big increases in carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases did not occur until AFTER 1950." ("Saviours of the Earth", p. 40). (Robert Balling, The Heated Debate: Greenhouse Predictions Versus Climate Reality (San Francisco: Pacific Research Institute for Public Policy, 1992), 87. Patrick Michaels, Sound and Fury (Washington, D.C.: CATO Institute, 1993. 55.63.) Most of the warming had really happened BEFORE greenhouse gas emissions started to accelerate! 4. From a scientist that should know, Patrick Michaels, associate professor of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia and past president of the American Association of State Climatologists, he says: "Northern Hemisphere satellite data, like those for the Southern Hemisphere, show no warming since the platforms were launched in 1979. Morover, the very warm years of the 1980s, which are so evident in the land-based record, simply do not appear in the satellite readings." (: Ibid. 55.) Scientists have also shown that "extensive tree ring analyses show the same result - no warming in the past twenty five years." ("Saviours of the Earth", p.40. 5. A great exaggeration has accompanied the environmentalists' forecasts about the climate, it seems. The climate models are not accurate, indeed illogical. Looking at the past 100 years we should be able to test this. The environmental climate models of the mid-80s predict that the 40 percent increase in greenhouse gases happening since the beginning of this century should have caused a temperature rise of over 2 degrees C. This hasn't happened, however. What is the increase in global temperature? At the very worst, only 0.45 degrees C. (Michaels, Sound and Fury, p. 40). 6. Dr Coffman, using the findings of climatologist Patrick Michaels, and the investigations of Thomas Karl, gives these comforting comments on current trends: "They describe a pattern of cooler summers, warmer winters, and longer growing seasons. OUR CLIMATE IS ACTUALLY GETTING BETTER....Rather than being a disaster, increasing carbon dioxide has greater chance of being a major boon to life on earth!" ("Saviours of the Earth?" p.43).


This scare weapon of the New World Order is also a scam! 1. A note of interest to begin with on the supposed increase in melanoma due to the hole in the ozone layer causing the sun to burn in a harsher way. Studies done inour own country of Australia have shown that indoor workers are more likely to get melanoma than outdoor workers are! Possibly because UVA is not absorbed by ozone, which Coffman tells us is implicated in causing melanoma. The link has not been definitely establish however. [Dixy Lee Ray, Environmental Overkill (Washington, D.C., Regnery Gate, 1993).41.)] 2. The first detection of the ozone "hole at a pole" came in 1956-58. It was thinner then than at any time since. The same problem for the environmentalists arises as it did with the global warming fiasco. The first measurements of the pole holes occurred BEFORE the so-called causes of these holes, (in this case CFCs), even became a significant factor! 3. Amazingly ozone HOLES, according to the experts, never actually form - "the ozone layer merely thins during the time of maximum levels - in late winter and early spring (for each hemisphere), and mostly at the polar regions. The little ozone thinning that occurs at our temperate latitudes is most likely caused by the same sulfate aerosols discussed above involved in global warming and acid rain."(Coffman, "Saviours of the Earth?".p49. He cites the work of Michaels, Sound and Fury, p.166) 4. There are not many people lying in the sun in early spring when there is thinning, and another fact more telling than this is the content of the so-called holes themselves. The ozone within the "holes" in late winter is still actually thicker than the normal thickness of the hemispheric summer period! WHAT ABOUT THOSE DESTRUCTIVE (chlorofluorocarbons)CFCs? In a small presentation, which is only prepared to stimulate the reader towards further study on the subject, the full weight of evidence cannot be presented. The books cited therefore should be read by those who cannot grasp the whole message herein, or who still have doubts about the veracity of the statements. A brief summary can only be presented in a limited space, with a few facts and figures. 1. The real culprits of the "holes at the poles" which do not exist are natural phenomena. Things like earthquakes.NOT CFCs! There is a natural thinning of ozone due to periodical natural occurrences, such as earthquakes and volcanoes. 2. THE MONTREAL PROTOCOL. The international agreement the Montreal Protocol, has been signed by many countries including Australia. This agreement has made the banning of CFCs total by AD 2000, even though there is no scientific evidence that CFCs cause ozone "holes". 3. The banning of CFCs is no light matter. There are no cost -effective replacements for the CFCs. All replacements are either ten to thirty times more costly than CFCs, and some are flammable, toxic and corrosive. This means there will be immense hardship, even deaths, caused by the banning of CFCs. Even the eco-terrorists that are demanding the banning know this to be fact. 4. In only four years time, at the writing of this booklet, all the refrigerators, freezers, air conditioners, millions of these, will be scrapped in Australia, and other nations. All this because of a document of 300 pages which gives "new findings" on the ozone depletion. A document that supported the drastic action of the Montreal Protocol, and which has been mysteriously "lost"! Yes, "lost"! The report cannot be "found" to be verified by other scientists. So that we have facing us a situation which must change our lives for the worse, far worse, the TOTAL banning of CFCs by AD 2000, and the drastic action is only based on "garbage science". Strange indeed. 5. From "The New Citizen", Vol.2,No.1. Sept/Oct/Nov.Edition. "Another environmental hoax - the claim that CFC refrigerants (the chlorofluorocarbons) are destroying the Earth's ozone layer - was recently denounced by Lewis du Pont Smith, an heir to the du Pont fortune. On the occasion of the du Pont Company board meeting early this year, Smith charged the corporation, now controlled by the Bronfman family of Canada, is furthering the hoax because it has a corner on the market for the CFCs' replacement; he also charged that millions will die, especially in the Third World, if CFC is banned from use in refrigerating food and medicine."


From "Inside News" July/August, 1989: "Once the Conrad Black - Kerry Packer takeover is completed, and somewhere down the track Murdock goes broke, these are the people who will really be running things downunder, [the writer refers to a company called Brascan previously], and responsible for most of what you and your children see, hear, and think, so listen carefully to the names. The Chairman of Brascan is Peter Bronfman, a relative of Edgar Bronfman, who is also on the board at Brascan. Edgar Bronfman is the man who single handedly financed the Ozone Hole scam, so that through his control of DuPont Chemicals he could have a world-wide monopoly on refrigeration. Edgar Bronfman is also, just incidentally, the president of the World Jewish Congress, and Brascan is the Rothschild family's principal control company on the American continent. Conrad B lack is also on the board, as is Nelson Rockefeller, John L. Mcloy, the Rockefeller family lawyer. Also on the board is Lewis L. Strauss, of Kuhn Loeb and Co." (The article was about the Australia media, but for our purposes here we have dealt only with CFCs).


We cannot imagine the real state of affairs if CFCs are banned. A huge tragedy will be forced upon the inhabitants of the planet, and remember that the New World Order intends to "shrink the population" by approx. 3 billion by the new millennium. Could this CFCs banning be a part of this unbelievable population culling process? It certainly seems to be. In Australia we would suffer enormously, especially those who live in the northern states. Our temperatures often exceed 30-35 degrees C, sometimes into the 40s. There will be no air conditioners as we know them, in hospitals, homes, offices, colleges or schools. There will be no refrigeration as we know it today. There will be food spoilage, heat stress for the ill, the very young and the elderly. ( More on the scam population explosion further on in this article) The cost of replacing our lost refrigeration is so staggering that it is unthinkable! It is estimated that replacing the refrigerants alone in the USA would cost the country $10 to $30 billion, but it will increase by fivefold by the year 2000, so the cost then would be $50 to $150 BILLION. We would all be up for huge increases paying for higher costs in foods, due to the higher costs of the replacement refrigeration. Just replacing our private refrigeration and air conditioners, paying for public replacements etc, would be as high as $10,000 per Australian family. "Engineers expect compressors on refrigerators to last only three years. The ban will cost Americans hundreds of billions, perhaps trillions, of dollars for a much inferior product." (Coffman).


Robert Watson, who is the head of the Ozone Trends Panel, and strongly supports the banning of CFCs, has admitted that there is, and I quote, "probably more people would die from food poisoning as a consequence of inadequate refrigeration than would die from depleting ozone." ("Press Release: Ozone Hole," editorial in the Wall Street Journal, February 28, 1992.)


This quote from Coffman is quite chilling: "Watson's prediction may turn out to be the understatment of the century. Due to the severe impact of losing CFCs on the refrigerated food transportation and storage industry, some estimates suggest that 20 -40 million people will die yearly world-wide from hunger, starvation, and food-borne diseases. Even if these estimates prove to be high, America appears to be bent on taking a giant step into the twilight zone - at a horrible cost in human tragedy." (Ibid p.52). (Cited for figures was Ray, Environmental Overkill, 49).


Here in Australia we have vast amounts of tax-payers' money being spent on "ecology" protection initiatives. Most citizens look on with vague approval, seeing no sinister side to the whole "greenie" hype, rather they are glad in a way that someone else is handling what they do not want to tackle. The view they have is limited, frighteningly so! The picture most Australians have of the environmental leader is a dedicated (perhaps extreme?) person who has such high principles that he/she simply moves bravely ahead, seeking to save the forests, oceans, rivers and animals from the hands of Western materialism and multinationals. They see the "greenies" as people who have little money, but depend heavily on donations, fighting greedy corporations who are very rich. They are caring people, despite being rather militant sometimes. The reality is that this is a false image.


"This image of environmental leadership is a myth of almost unbelievable proportions - a myth perpetrated and maintained by a well-oiled and extremely well-financed propaganda machine of the environmental organizations themselves, along with a little help from the media. In fact, environmental leadership generally outmans, outspends, and outguns their opposition many times over. The level of funding at the fingertips of these leaders has to be huge for them to conduct their activities across such a broad front: the agricultural industry, the forest products and paper industry, the commercial fishing industry, the chemical industry, the automobile' trucking industry, the solid waste disposal industry (they don't want to find solutions), and even golf course industry. In fact,...they are against any individual who violates their nature-is-god, biocentric view of reality." ("Saviours of the Earth?", p.99).


The horror stories of the suffering caused by the environmentalists to ordinary citizens, companies, logging employees, and entire nations, abound. Australia itself is becoming a suffering country due to the eco-terrorism. It is difficult to get access to the stories of the average person's plight, in Australian terms, the following are related from the USA, and Australian.


John Pozsgai was unable to understand what was happening to him. He was an immmigrant from Hungary, who had suffered under the Nazi Gestapo and Communism. He felt that America was a free country. But now, just because he had cleaned up some junk on a dump and had started to build a garage, he was jailed, and had lost all his life savings. It was just like Hitler and Stalin! In 1991 Pozgai bought a fourteen acre block of land so that he could expand his small business. It had been used as a dump for twenty years, and was covered in old tyres and rusty old car parts, so he had to clean it up. He was going to replace the junk with clean dirt and gravel. He was told he needed a permit by state officials, which he got. It wasn't a marsh or a swamp. The creek adjacent to the cleanup was mostly dry, and skunk cabbage and sweet gum trees were there. Because the land had these, the land fell under the WETLANDS JURISDICTION definition. The EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) slapped a restraining order on Pozgai to prevent any deposit of fill. Pozgai tried to comply by putting up barriers to stop the fill dumping going on. Sadly, Pozgai did not camp out on the block to ensure that all understood about the restrain, and several contractors drove around the barricades and dumped fill, as they had contracted to do. The EPA video- taped this, and disaster struck Pozgai! He was accused of violating the "Navigable Waters" provision of the Clean Waters Act. What happened? Pozgai was fined $202,000 and sentenced to three years in prison. He also had to restore the dump land to its pristine, natural state, which it hadn't been in for twenty years or more.


A man on the Sunshine Coast, Queensland, felt his view was interrupted by the native trees on the foreshore in front of his beach house. He cut down a few of the trees. This was admittedly rather presumption on his part. to say the least. However, the environmental clamour that has arisen is "overkill". The guilty party is facing fines which have been suggested as being a quarter of a million dollars, he has to replace all the trees at the original full-size level. An immensely costly procedure. The man will be ruined most likely by the time this is over. What if he cannot pay?


Ron Stevens, who lives in Memphis, Tennessee, owns an electrical shop. In 1987 he received a bill from EPA for $250,000 to clean up a Superfund site in Cape Giradeau, Missouri. He knew nothing of this matter at all! Why did he get the bill? We shall see! Ron got the bill for one quarter of a million dollars because he sold used transformers in 1977 to a parts distributor in St Louis for $250. Some of these transformers ended up in the Missouri Electrical Works in Cape Girardeau, which later become a Superfund site.* (A Superfund toxic waste site is an area that falls under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act of 1980. Designed to clean up large hazardous waste dumps or spills.) That older style transformer contained oil with some PCBs, which can harm wildlife. According to the Superfund rules, even if a party had only contributed in a small way to the waste dumping, they could be held responsible to clean up the mess. Even to have to pay for the entire cleanup. Ron had to pay $250,000, or face a lawsuit which could have cost him millions! (Ron had done nothing illegal at all, initially. Nor had he even known of the site which he had to pay to clean up!)


The small businesses which specialize in spray painting and panel-beating cars had a nasty blow delivered to them. This happened in the Brisbane area of Queensland. They were told by the council, under new environmental laws, that they could no longer spray the cars in the old way, or finish the final step in the bogging process by washing down the car with the hose. Why? They were polluting the earth by letting the water run off the cars into the soil, and they were polluting the atmosphere by spraying the cars with paint. The new laws stated that the business owners must construct spraying booths to catch any paint floating in the air. The water running off the cars had to be caught in special water traps, which would then be collected by contractors for removal and re-cycling, which the small businesses, of course, would have to pay for. The whole affair was too costly for the majority, and they had no choice but to close up. Thus getting rid of older cars?


The extent of the ecology war being waged against the planet should never be under estimated. Incidences could be told which are hair-raising. "Many people can remember photos of the ghostly death of entire forests in Europe and the eastern United States. Bearing a silent testimony to the insensitivity of man, these forests were supposedly killed by that deadly chemical soup, acid rain. People still envision acid-scorched leaves, dissolving buildings, and tumor-ridden fish when they think of acid rain. people find it hard to believe that acid rain is not the disaster environmental leaders have made it out to be. Like the DDT "catastrophe," however, pseudoscience, hysteria, and emotion prevailed over science."(Coffman, p.37). It is not, it seems, that science has shown that acid rain does not cause damage, but rather that there has been an enormous distortion of what had been shown by science to be a "manageable problem". Science has revealed that acid rain caused only marginal damage to some lakes and streams, and did not cause the damage to forests to the extent that it was claimed. An example: less than .01 percent of all the USA eastern forests were damaged by acid rain, and those damaged were located on very high mountains. "Intensive [research] has not supported initial concerns that North American forests are suffering widespread damage caused by acidic deposition. Most forests are apparently healthy. Known forest health problems are in most cases attributable to natural stresses and/or past land management practices. With the possible and notable exception of high-elevation red spruce in the northern Appalachians, acidic deposition has not been shown to be a significant factor contributing to current forest health problems in North America."* (Joseph Barnard, "Changes in Forest Health and Productivity in the United States and Canada." Acidic Deposition: State of Science and Technology Report 16. Nation Acid Precipitation Assessment Program,158.)




Have the environmentalists made a dramatic, dangerous impact on our own society? The impact has been increasing over the years, leading up to the last years of this millennium, when the political pressures are being brought into "big gun" status! Consider the following initiatives here in Australia, as a mere example. 1. ANCA - Australian Nature Conservation Agency. In 1993 published the First Edition of The Directory of Important Wetlands in Australia. A culmination of a three year cooperative project involving all State and Territory Governments. This First Edition described 520 nationally important wetland areas with a total of nearly 13 million hectares. Australia is the host for the Ramsar Convention Conference in Brisbane. 2. THE RAMSAR SITES. These are wetland sites of International Importance. The National Wetlands Program has been allocated $3.1m for activities over the next four years. Ramsar is an inter-governmental conference held every three years. Its organization will be a joint effort between the Federal and Queensland Governments, the Brisbane City Council and a coalition of non-government groups and the Australian Wetlands Alliance. All this is wetlands based. Remember, that "wetlands" description can involve dry lands as well. A property, even a town, may not even have to be wet, or even slightly damp, to be designated a wetland. In the USA almost anything can qualify as a wetland, as long as two of these criteria are met: (a). The soil was classified as being "hydric", that is having characteristics of being saturated with water for long periods. (b). The water table reached within eighteen inches of the surface for as little as seven days during the growing season. (c). Hydrophilic (water loving/tolerant) vegetation was present. (Land Rights letter 3, nos.1,2 (1993),5) In the USA a horror tale related about a man called William Ellen should cause us to reflect seriously indeed on these "wetland" initiatives: For what was called a "premeditated environmental crime" by Jane F.Barrett, Ass. US Attorney, who helped prosecute Ellen, the prosecution asked for a jail term of 27-33 months. The time an average convicted person spends in jail in the US is 6.4 days; for robbery, 23 days; for rape 60 days; and for murder, 18 months! Ellen ended up with six months in prison, an additional four months in home detention and one year of supervised release.


A rather complicated case, of amazingly foolish charges, it can be basically summed up thus - he dumped two loads of dirt! The land had never seen a drop of surface water, but it was deemed to be a crime of "filling a wetlands." A revision of the definition of wetlands had quietly been accomplished without Ellen's knowledge. Ellen was accused of "filling" five wetlands totalling 86 acres. Three of these counts were for mistakes that had occurred a full year before. 3. ANZECC WETLANDS NETWORK. ANZECC is The Australian and New Zealand Environmental and Conservation Council which consists of the Federal Environmental Ministers of Australia and New Zealand plus the corresponding Minister from each Australian State and Territory. It encompasses different agencies such as: Federal agencies and commissions; Parks and conservation; heritage and natural resource departments; national parks etc; wildlife. 4. THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION ACT. EPA, AUSTRALIA. The EPA 1994 affects us all. The Act has 241 sections in eight chapters. It is to do with LOCAL CONTROL; NEW RESPONSIBILITIES; "ENVIRONMENTAL DUTY"; and PROTECTION POLICIES. "For the first time in Queensland law, each person is bound by a general 'environmental duty'." (Material from the Queensland Department of Environmental and Heritage). OFFENCES? The department states that "polluting the air, land or water is an offence." The penalties "range from $60 to $600 on-the-stop fines for "minor" infringements, and up to $250,000 for "someone who deliberately causes serious pollution." This is defined in the Act as "harm which costs more than $50,000 to fix." Which could mean anything in practical situations. "Serious or deliberate offences also carry JAIL SENTENCES." (My emphasis).


Be not deceived, Greenpeace is eco-terrorism in action! Who are these people? Like many of the "save the earth" greenie groups, Greenpeace is a New Age association, networking with many, many others. These are basically all controlled by the Theosphists, with "deep ecology" beliefs prevalent throughout. There are thousands and thousands of these groups which network together, in order to bring forth the Aquarian Age, the New Age New World Order. Countless groups which seek 'peace', to 'save the earth', implement the New Age 'Plan' and bring the new culture to the globe. This short list can give the reader a realisation of the enormity of the New Age networks, amongst them being Greenpeace. Arcane school, Esalen Institute, Club of Rome, Institute of Noetic Sciences, Planetary Initiative, Theosphical Society, World Goodwill, Findhorn Foundation, Tara Centre, Windstar, New Group of World Servers, Lucis Trust, Perelandra, Planetary Citizens, Sierra Club, Association for Transpersonal Psychology, Hunger Project, Astara, Chinook Learning Center, Sirius Community - many, many more. Thousands more.


The Planetary Citizens was created by the former Ass.Sec.Gen.to the United Nations, Robert Muller, and the United Nations consultant Donald Keys, at the direction of the then Secretary General of the UN U- Thant.


Many average people who support the environmentalists have no idea that the whole movement has a dark religious thrust to it. Leaders in the environmental groups, on a local level, may not understand this themselves. Theosophy has enormous power in the world of the 1990s, this in itself is a supernatural, and astonishing, situation. Too complex to attempt in anything but a brief outline here, the grasp of the Theosphical beliefs will help the reader to understand the environmental movement and globalism today. 1. GAIA, the Mother Earth or Goddess, is the earth hypothesis which undergirds the environmental groups.The earth is called Gaia after an ancient Greek goddess, and is seen as a living entity who "feels" "thinks" "rules" "commands" and "loves" - and destroys those who would pollute her!. She is more important than humans, who are mere germs on her skin. 2. Nature is God, and God is nature is a theological doctrine of theosophy. Helena Blavatsky was the founder of the Theosphical Society late last century. Another name which is of importance in the movement is Alice Bailey. These following quotes will help clarify the situation: "[Theosophy] belongs neither to the Hindu, the Zoastrian, Chaldean, nor the Egyptian religion, neither to Buddhism, Islam, Judaism nor Christianity exclusively. The Secret Doctrine [of Theosophy] is the essence of all these." (Helena Blavatsky, The Secret Doctrine.) "SATAN will now be shown in the teaching of the Secret Doctrine [of Theosophy], allegorised as Good, and Sacrifice, a God of Wisdom, under different names." (Emphasis mine.) The Secret Doctrine. Helena Blavatsky.


"Interference by man in this civilisation can disrupt the life forces of nature and the occult. Only in countries where there is no civilisation can the power of nature be found - the world's soul." (Helena Blavatsky. Isis Unveiled, Vol. 2:210-11.)


The New Age deep ecology beliefs dominate the environmental movement. David Garber, research biologist, says this: "Human happiness, and certainly human fecundity, are not as important as a wild and healthy planet. I know social scientists who remind me that people are a part of nature, but that isn't true. Somewhere along the line - at about a million years ago, maybe half that - we quit the contract and became a cancer. we have become a plague upon ourselves and upon the Earth....Until such time as Homo Sapiens should decide to rejoin nature, some of us can only hope for the right virus to come along." (Quoted from Robert Bidinotto, "Environmentalism:Freedom's Foe for the '90s," The Freeman, Nov.1990,414. Requoted in "Savior's of the Earth?", p.92.) "Humans are a cancer to the earth - even those native cultures of a few thousand years ago. The only solution is to eliminate man! Or at least to reduce man's population to somewhere around 500 million from the 5.5 billion that exist today. The more radical groups such as EARTH FIRST!, SEA SHEPHERD, and GREENPEACE, ascribe to these beliefs, which helps to explain their extreme militancy. David Foreman, founder of Earth First! puts this rather succinctly: "We are a BIOCENTRIC WARRIOR SOCIETY....Forget about career, about family, about VCRs and power boats and get out and fight!" (Emphasis added. Coffman, p.93. Quoted from The Animal's Agenda, December, 1987.)


Already we in Australia have seen on our own televisions scenes of farmers and their families being victimized over some environmental issue or other. We have seen timber mills closed, ordinary citizens in distress over some incident or other to do with the environment, things could get very much worse. Be careful before condemning some poor family for their "callous" treatment of nature or animals. Families are being destroyed by the eco-terrorists of this world! The environmental movement which appears to be in isolation from the power barons of the planet, is not standing alone, it is an integral part of a global agenda. The religion that says that nature is God is a global one, with a future of tyranny already planned for the earth's masses. This religion will inevitably regress the civilization of the earth back thousands of years, and bring black poverty and suffering to billions. (If they survive that long!) Esoteric religion has wrought, with its catastrophe, "holes in poles", "destroy the refrigerator" scams, "the earth is a pressure-cooker" hysteria, a huge deception upon mankind! This could well lead the godless world into the Tribulation period of Biblical Prophecy (Revelation 6-19). Time is short!


March 1988, NASA's Ozone Trends Panel declared that the ozone layer had been depleted, and it was as bad as 2 to 3 percent! Comments Dr Coffman: "Putting this in perspective, a 2 percent reduction is equivalent to the natural decline in the ozone thickness from Boston to Washington, D.C., or between Portland, regon, Sacramento, California! If 2 to 3 percent reduction is important, then those Americans who live in the South are already in big trouble! Somehow these qualifiers were overlooked, and the press release sent shock waves throughout the world. Calls were made to ban CFCs." (P. 50. "Saviours of the Earth.") And so in 1990 the international agreement named the Montreal Protocol was revised. It was then signed by the USA and many other nations, including eventually Australia. The world was set to ban completely the use of CFCs by the year 2000. The Deputy Assistant of State for Environment in the USA, Richard Benedick, was the USA negotiator in that treaty. This is, amazingly, what Benedick said: "The most extraordinary aspect of the treaty was its imposition of short-term economic costs to protect human health and the environment against unprove future dangers...dangers that rested on scientific theories, rather than on firm data. At the time of the negotiations and signing, no measurable evidence of damage existed....By their action, the signatory countries sounded the death knell for an important part of the international chemical industry, with implications for billions of dollars in investment and hundreds of thousands of jobs in related sectors." (Richard Benedick, Ozone Diplomacy (Cambridge:Harvard Univ.,1991),190; as quoted in Dixy Lee Ray, Environmental Overkill, 46.)


Click here for completion of this document....